Pretensions of glory? Gavin Williamson turns the clock back to 1955...

I was, I admit, intrigued by this week’s suggestion by the Secretary of State for Defence that, post-Brexit, we could open military bases across the globe. Guyana, Singapore and Brunei are three of the possibilities floated by Gavin Williamson.

Putting aside the rather brutal truth that we currently can’t afford to put aircraft on our shiny new carriers, successfully recruit soldiers, or even maintain our current capability without sizeable additional investment, it does strike me that the obvious question is, why would we need such things? Of course, I’m not old enough to remember a time when we had a worldwide collection of bases, but the reason for having them was simple - we had a vast empire, obviously, and a need to control trade routes.

In the early twenty-first century, however, I find myself puzzled as to what the purpose would be now. Mr Williamson seems to suggest that we could supply moral leadership, which indicates a degree of obliviousness to the impact our Brexit debate has had on the view others have of us. I find myself wondering what a Trudeau-led Canada would think of such a ‘generous’ offer but suspect that the response might not be entirely positive. And, in any event, you don’t really need military forces to offer moral leadership - and I offer Norway as an example of a country which punches well above its weight in the moral sphere without the need to project its military power.

So, one must ask the question, what does he think Britain’s future role is to be, and what is a modern, liberal alternative?

As a nation, we already (just) meet the 2% of GDP NATO target for defence expenditure, which puts us within a surprisingly select European grouping - Estonia and Greece, from memory - and that doesn’t appear to be enough to maintain our current strength. Hardware and ammunition don’t come cheap, and having soldiers, sailors and pilots without equipment is a futile exercise. So, we need to have a clear set of goals, and an understanding of what is possible and necessary.

An obvious means of maximising our options is to pool resources, but NATO is a military alliance ill-suited to political intervention and is heavily dependent on its American pillar. Some sort of European Union might offer a better medium, but the Government is currently ruling that out - much to my personal regret. That leaves forming some sort of bilateral or multilateral arrangement beyond what currently exists but, for that to really work well, some pooling of sovereignty, apparently out of fashion for now, is required.

And what are the goals to be? Defence of democracy? Humanitarianism? Mutual defence against terrorism? Or simply to ensure a defensive capability against hostile forces?

That’s a difficult choice, if you intend to be consistent, and reflective of your preferred ‘will of the people’ - for all political parties are selective in that sense, consciously or unconsciously.

For me, military resources are, foremost, to defend and protect the citizenry but, when not needed for that, they should form part of a toolkit with diplomacy and development aid, to support administrations who share our values and to promote those values elsewhere. Admittedly, you probably wouldn’t use military force for the latter element.

So, what sort of military do you need for that? Flexible, obviously, with the ability to transfer troops and their support quickly and efficiently, key in delivering humanitarian objectives. And, for me, that doesn’t mean maintaining your own bases. In a world of terrorists who can simply melt back into the local population, permanent bases offer easy targets, aren’t necessarily convenient for where you need them to be, and tie up valuable resources. The ability to work co-operatively with like-minded friendly nations, using their bases as required, taking part in joint exercises to build trust, understanding and easy co-ordination seems to offer a more effective means of operation. In truth, if you can’t achieve that, you probably don’t have the ability to intervene effectively anyway.

Building friendships is easier, more flexible and cheaper than building new bases which give a perhaps unworthy sense of attempting to create Empire 2.0. A surprising number of people, not all ordinary members of the public, seem to think that the Empire is merely sleeping rather than dead, but that doesn’t make the concept anything less than utterly absurd.

Of course, Gavin Williamson may just be posturing for the support of the sort of people who vote in Conservative Party leadership contests, but he might really mean it. And whilst such a strategy offers some potential humour, liberals need to think more closely about what we want from our Armed Forces is we want the United Kingdom to play a key role in building a better world.

I'm thinking of writing a motion for next year's Conference...

So, having vented my spleen just a little, one does have to move on. And I have an idea, in that I have an interesting platform as a member of FIRC (which does, now I think of it, have the ring of a group of shadowy figures bent on world domination). After all, I have notional credibility as a commentator on international affairs in the Party.

Why not write a motion on something that interests me then?

That something is intervention abroad, what criteria should be applied, what changes to governance are necessary and how might they be resourced. More than a decade ago, I came up with a similar document for Americans for Democratic Action, albeit a much simpler one than I'd want now, which laid down the core criteria for intervention in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.

Now, before you reach for your smelling salts, dear reader, I'm not a natural interventionist. More harm has been done in recent years by botched interventions in the affairs of countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria than could be stated in a simple blog entry, yet as a country which still has a reputation for decency and fair play, we could play a valuable role in world trouble spots.

So, I welcome any suggestions of people I should talk to, or ideas that might be added. Think of it as an informal policy working group with an unusually narrow focus.

And now, time to read the drafting guidance for policy motions as produced by Federal Conference Committee...

Some thoughts in advance of Federal International Relations Committee

So, word has got out that I resigned as Secretary of the Committee, and "Liberator" has reported the story in their usual style. If you're interested, and I'm not sure that the resignation of a minor figure on an obscure internal party committee is particularly newsworthy, you can read the story there. However, my first meeting since then takes place this morning, and I ought to let you know what I'll be focussing on there.

My aim since being elected to the Committee at the end of last year has been to try and enable it to fulfil its functions and comply with the Party's Constitution. It isn't glamorous, but it is important - drafting standing orders, creating process sufficient to deliver key goals, that sort of thing. And, naturally, that work is ongoing.

And now, my attention turns to policy. Federal International Relations Committee is expected to advise the Party, and the Parliamentary Parties, on international and European policy, and I'm keen to make us relevant to the debate. That means developing policy in conjunction with Federal Policy Committee, it means drafting and submitting motions to Party Conferences, it means looking at potential future issues and considering how a liberal response would look.

We aren't alone in that. Word reaches me that the "Your Liberal Britain" team are looking into the creation of a number of committees, focusing on particular policy areas. There are also specialist groups in the Party, such as the various "Friends of" groups and the Liberal Democrat European Group, which have an interest in elements of international policy.

And so, I'm proposing the formation of a Policy sub-committee, tasked with coming up with new policy ideas, studying current priorities and seeking a clearer picture of what we should be doing in terms of a response. It would also take a lead on drafting resolutions for debate at ALDE Party and Liberal International Congresses, using our time more effectively and in a more organised way.

At the moment, FIRC doesn't really consider policy in an organised way - there just isn't enough time and, in any event, good policy making is organic and evolutionary, rather than impulsive.

Apart from that, we've got a very busy agenda, with three ALDE guests participating in the meeting - Timmy Dooley and Henrik Bach Mortensen, two of Ros's fellow Vice-Presidents, and Bart Somers, a prominent liberal mayor from Mechelen, in Belgium. There'll be planning for the forthcoming ALDE Party Congress in Amsterdam in early December, and a delegation is being put together in anticipation.

We'll also be talking about the future of Brussels and Europe Liberal Democrats, who are undergoing something of a remodelling following a large increase in their membership. A lot of work has been going on behind the scenes to come up with a structure that allows them optimal autonomy whilst addressing key compliance issues, and I'm hoping that a way forward will emerge this week.

So, much to do, and much to be getting on with...

@AamAadmiParty - might they be an Indian liberal party?

There was a conference taking place at my hotel, and the restaurant was full for breakfast, and so, when I was asked if I would mind sharing my table with someone else, it would have been churlish to refuse.

And, as you do, we got talking, the young man and I. He asked why I was in Delhi, assuming, not unreasonably, that I was probably in town for business, so I explained that It was merely a jet lag stopover on the way to Mumbai to visit family. He works in Bangalore for a big, international IT firm - I won't name it just in case - but was in town to meet with local campaigners for the Aam Aadmi Party, the newest big thing on the Indian political scene.

Aam Aadmi, which is Hindi for 'common man' sprang from a people's anti-corruption movement three years ago, and calls for action against corruption in politics as well as society at large, devolution of power from the centre and community building. It does sound vaguely familiar, and indeed the party is considered to be centre-left.

The fight against corruption is very much an issue amongst the emerging middle class and, especially, young people, who see it as a way to improve India's prospects. And, given the endemic levels of corruption in Indian politics, only a new political force is likely to have the motivation required to change things.

My young breakfast companion was rather enthusiastic, emphasising that they don't get big corporate donors and that funds are raised predominantly from supporters (still sounding a bit familiar, isn't it?). They call for a radical change in the way India is run, and I was beginning to tick some of those philosophical boxes that you have when you're testing out potential new members of ALDE and the Liberal International.

And so, with my International Relations Committee hat on, I explained a little about international political families, and how forming links with like-minded parties in other democracies might be useful - access to training, new ideas, campaigning techniques, policy making, all of the things that new political movements can struggle with.

It was a lot to think of, I admit, but you should never miss out on an opportunity to spread liberalism or, at the very least, internationalism, so perhaps a message might be conveyed to someone of influence in the party as something to consider.

And, who knows, liberalism might have a genuine champion in India one day...

Dave, Nick and Ed - thanks for nothing!

I am, I suppose, a bit of a liberal interventionist. I believe in a model whereby the international community defines certain behaviours as unacceptable, agrees on a range of possible sanctions, and then enforces them based on principles of evidence, justice and international law.

It's the word 'enforce' that presents us with the tricky bit. Enforcement means action, because unless you actually demonstrate that you really mean it, those minded to break the rules are encouraged to believe that they might well get away with it.

Last night, the Government showed poor judgment in calling a fairly meaningless, and probably unnecessary, vote on potential future action against Syria, a motion which positively invited a 'political' Opposition amendment, and was then lost to a coalition of the Labour Party, government rebels and minor parties.

In doing so, Parliament has effectively, although perhaps accidentally, turned its back on the cause of liberal interventionism in the case of Syria.

Oh yes, we've hardly been consistent in our approach. We only tend to engage with the approval of the US, but someone has to lead, and big countries with sufficient military capacity are required to demonstrate the existence of a big stick.

But, as a liberal, albeit perhaps an old-fashioned one, it's no good talking about the rights of man if, when push comes to shove, you only mean it when it's easy or convenient.

So, perhaps now would be a good time to take stock of our place in the world, and our obligations towards it?

David Milliband: now right, but not apparently sorry...

It was a Saturday in mid-July. The sun beat down upon middle England out of a clear blue sky on the sort of day which usually sees Englishmen unveil a dress sense to horrify Frenchmen, Italians and, in truth, anyone with an eye for fashion. Barbecue and cold beer weather or, for those with a more genteel disposition, a glass of something red and full-bodied. And there I was, in a suit, heading for something best described as the political equivalent of LinkedIn for people who really don't need a computer or social media.

Ditchley Park is a country house and estate north west of Oxford and about two miles from Charlbury, and is probably best known as being the home of the Ditchley Foundation, an organisation with a goal of advancing international learning and to bring transatlantic and other experts together to discuss international issues. It is, if you like, a garden party for the great and the good with a lecture attached.

It would be fair to say that this is not my obviously natural territory, but given what Ros does, it is hers, and where she goes, and they'll have me, I go too. The main attraction, a speech by David Milliband, billed as being his last major political intervention before going to take up his new role as CEO of the International Rescue Committee in September.

The entertainment came in two parts - a formal speech and a question and answer session. The speech has already been published by the New Statesman, and covered by the press. The Q&A session was, and will remain to some degree, off the record - I cannot believe for one moment that it won't be leaked, such is the world we live in - and I will respect that injunction, although I wouldn't say that it was particularly revelatory.

His speech was about intervention by the 'Great Powers', in particular with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. He noted;

Iraq and Afghanistan have occupied American and other western troops for longer than World War 2, at enormous not to say inordinate cost, human, financial and political. And the longer we have been in these two countries, the less clear it has been not just who has won or even is winning, but also what winning looks like. Alliances shift, local politics intervenes, recent promises are trumped by old hatreds, my enemy’s enemy turns out to be mine too.

And yet, given that he was Foreign Secretary from 2007 until 2010, he seemed remarkably coy about his responsibility, both individual and collective, for what happened in both theatres. He had, however, drawn four lessons;

• clarity and legitimacy in post-conflict power sharing arrangements needs to be front and centre in any diplomatic or military endeavour overseas 
• without the support of regional actors fragile states can never be stabilised 
• mobile terrorist groups add a whole new dimension to instability in fragile states through their ability to hijack local grievances 
• the phrase “war on terror” had the dangerous consequence of uniting under a single banner a series of disparate and sometimes localised grievances, so language is important 

Now, to be honest, I'm not that impressed. In 2006, I was designing an American policy for intervention - multinational, supported by the United Nations or the appropriate regional body, backed with prior congressional approval and with stated objectives - and I didn't have an entire bureaucracy behind me.

In fairness - and I'm a pretty fair person, usually - it was a well-constructed speech, awash with interesting points, most of which merited further development but never received any, the sort of speech that is interesting but, when pondered over afterwards, leaves you wondering what it was he actually said.

But for me, his most interesting, and somewhat depressing, comment, seemingly almost slipped in was this;

Ten years on, Saddam is gone, and the Kurds are safe, but the country is afflicted by violence and fissures. The overall reckoning is strongly negative. There were no WMD, and if we had known that in 2003 then there would have been no justification for war.

Well, David, that's fine as far as it goes, but if you recall, there were many saying just that in 2003. You, and your colleagues of the time, ignored that view, doctored your evidence, and used it to justify intervention.

It would have been nice if you could have found it in you to apologise... 

This committee thing, explain it to me again, will you?

Having now spent a day in the metropolis that is London, it is time to head for home.  It has, I must confess, been rather fun, although not necessarily for any reason I might have envisaged when I agreed to come.

It is still somewhat unclear as to why I was invited to attend the International Relations Committee away day, although I flatter myself to suggest that I was of some use in their discussions. I'm not a policy wonk, nor do I have a long record of activity and participation in ALDE or the Liberal International. However, I do feel that it is imperative to broaden and deepen involvement in the Party's international activity, and I know enough to make a case.

I did, it is true, wonder out loud about the purpose and function of the International Relations Committee, and whilst those with a greater record of engagement will have some very good answers to those points, I hope that I might have given the Committee some food for thought.

I then had tea with a dear friend, before meeting up with Ros and heading for dinner. It is slightly quirky, meeting her midweek, and feels a bit like a 'date night', a really rather nice feeling. Best of all, the need to come to London for training in the months ahead means that I''ll have a regular excuse to repeat it. Looks like I owe Danny another favour...

A postcard from Ypres... lest we forget

I'm an amateur military historian, not so much of guns and bombs, but of political imperative, of the influence of nationalism and domestic politics, indeed why so many supposedly smart people sent so many young men to their death.

The 'In Flanders Fields' museum, in the reconstructed Lakenhalle (Cloth Hall), in the heart of Ypres, itself a focal point for much slaughter on both sides between 1914 and 1918, offers a fascinating insight into the personal tragedies of trench warfare, of citizens fleeing a war zone, and of the industrialisation of warfare. Equally powerfully, it provokes thought in those so minded to dwell on such things.

It is, I suppose, traditional that we remember the sacrifices of those that died to preserve our freedoms. So, once a year, we solemnly respect the minute's silence, even though we have no living relative who served, and only family folk memory of those that did.

And I find myself wondering, from time to time, why we remain, in some quarters, so keen to send our young men to some far away place, to die for, what was it exactly? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pacifist, and I fully accept that military intervention is necessary, if unwanted.

It is, however, the case that we do spend an awful lot of defence, which very few people complain about, and Conservatives like, and relatively little on International Development, which has rather fewer friends. In fairness, the Coalition has continued our progress towards the 0.7% of GDP target for spending in this area, protecting it from cuts, something that we, as Liberal Democrats, should take some pride from.

Making friends does not come cheaply, whilst making enemies is rather more expensive, so we should be making the case in support of our aid program, as an investment in our future, as a means of promoting trade and goodwill, and we need to be smart about how we spend our available funds.

Bilateral programmes of education, or scientific research, infrastructure projects in developing countries, these are means of helping poorer nations to get on, thus creating markets for our exports and trading opportunities for those countries with their neighbours.

In this way, mutual interests develop, likely to make leaders hesitate before initiating conflict, or sponsoring terror elsewhere.

And best of all, there will be less young men and women dying in foreign fields for a political imperative...

Europe and the Liberal Democrats: we're at our best when we believe in something

Having just watched young Clegg on 'The Andrew Marr Show', I am much reassured. The initial reports of his response to the failure of the Brussels summit were, in the eyes of many Liberal Democrats, including this one, deeply regrettable, which only goes to show that you shouldn't necessarily believe what you read in the newspapers or see on the television news.

And I have to say, I thought that Nick did very well this morning. By admitting the truth, that the City of London is no safer now than it was before Cameron played the Conservative Party's joker, he said what most people who actually understand both the issues and the politics know, that a veto only works if it prevents something bad from happening, and that if you're not in the room when the big questions are discussed, you're not fighting for Britain's interest, you're watching as other decide your future for you. Not so much a veto as an abrogation of personal responsibility.

There are only really two options from here, one popular but wrong, one difficult but right.

If we want to protect the City of London, we need to be at the heart of the debate, or outside altogether. The Conservative Party would, I fear, given the chance, lead us out, leaving us dependent on the World Trade Organisation to protect our interests - not a happy scenario for anything smaller than a multinational. And Nick is clear, with three million jobs potentially at risk, with our influence in the world at stake, leaving Europe is not an option.

No, young Clegg did well today. It's about jobs and growth, not about machismo. It's about our long term future as a nation, not about pandering to the Daily Vile.

And perhaps, whilst we're at it, we can start talking about building the sort of democratic, accountable, transparent Europe that might prevent this sort of stupidity in future...

Europe, it was better in my day...

I'll be honest, I'm not missing the 'glamour' of spending my weekends travelling around the country with Ros. However, I do like to get out beyond the borders of Suffolk from time to time, and this weekend sees me in Dresden for a meeting of the ELDR Council (for more details, see here).

For a Party which is internationalist and pro-European, we really don't take our European relationships that seriously. Our delegations to ELDR and Liberal International go unremarked and, for the most part, unnoticed, and it is rare for a senior figure, other than our MEPs, to take part. Which is a pity, in truth.

More than twenty years ago, when I was International Officer of the Young Liberal Democrats, one of the more successful aspects of our activity was our participation in LYMEC (Liberal Youth Movements of the European Community) and IFLRY (International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth). They were a thoroughly effective training ground for young politicians and, occasionally, a stepping stone to bigger and better things. My contemporaries ended up as government ministers, MEPs and MPs. One of them became the Vice Premier of British Columbia.

Now, Liberal Youth aren't engaged to the same extent, and the age profile of those who choose to take part from the wider party is a mite depressing - twenty years later, I'm still one of the younger ones.

Twenty years ago, relative poverty was a valid excuse - most twenty-somethings had more pressing things to spend their money on than a wet weekend of policy wrangling in Bratislava or Helsinki - but now the issue is about information. After all, who knows much about the international work of the Party these days?

Oh yes, there are reports in Liberal Democrat Pravda, read by very few people likely to read this piece, but there are no reports to Conference, little coverage in Liberal Democrat Voice (unless I write it), and therefore little scope for widening participation.

Something should be done... might our noble friend, Lord Bonkers, be prevailed upon to help out?

Bangladesh - kind acts in an often unkind world

When there is talk of a UN Mission to somewhere hostile, there is often a debate in Europe about carrying our fair share of the burden. Often, that consists of rather hoping that someone else will do it. And yet, Bangladesh has a well-earned reputation for punching above its weight in terms of peacekeeping.

Indeed, Bangladeshi troops have been active in;

• the Western Sahara (MINURSO)
• the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC)
• Liberia (UNMIL)
• the Ivory Coast (UNOCI)
• Sudan (UNMIS)
• Darfur (UNAMID)
• the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)
• East Timor (UNMIT)

In addition, there are Bangladeshi police personnel in;

• Haiti (MINUSTAH)

By any standards, that isn't bad. And perhaps, when the British public complain about sending troops to Afghanistan and elsewhere, they might like to contrast the resources we dedicate to keeping them safe, well-fed and well-armed, with those available to Bangladeshi troops in some of the grimmer corners of the so-called 'Dark Continent'...

Nation building and America - a philosophical disconnect

In recent weeks, the sheer scale of the failure of the West in terms of building what might be recognised as functioning democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq has become ever more painfully obvious. I've become suspicious that the problem lies with the American attitude to constructing a civil society, combined with the failure of Europe to provide an alternative example.

If you are genuinely intent on changing a nation for the better, you really do need to understand the social construct of that nation. Why does it favour democracy over dictatorship? Does religion play a greater or lesser role in cultural and social life? What factors impact on social cohesion? I sense that recent American administrations, especially Republican ones, have failed to grasp the importance of proper research, and in some cases, really don't care that much. After all, American democracy has proved to be such an example to the rest of us... with its inclusiveness (the amount spent by British political parties in 2005 wouldn't fund a gubernatorial race in California), transparency (voting machines with dubious codes, recounts decided at the pleasure of the Supreme Court rather than by actually counting ballot papers...) and plurality (how many different political parties have elected someone to the national parliament in the last fifty years?).

And yet the view is that a democracy must look vaguely familiar. This flies in the face of all of the evidence, and tends to be honoured more in the exception anyway. For example, Singapore is considered to be a democracy and it is, after a fashion. One party has been in power since independence, and tends to respond badly to even the most rudimentary challenge from a barely tolerated opposition. India is the world's largest democracy yet can be somewhat chaotic in terms of practice.

On the other hand, until very recently, the men of Appenzell in Switzerland met in the town square, swords in hand, to debate the issues of the day, and that was cantonal government. Democracy develops best when it has examples to be influenced by, when debate emerges from within, rather than by being imposed by outside forces.

If we must insist on invading a country to 'improve' it, we need to be far more honest about what we hope to achieve, and how we propose to do it. The debate over whether or not to invade Iraq was a farce, with both the Bush administration and the Blair government promoting different reasons for doing so depending on what polls showed to be popular from week to week. They failed to convince their own people as to their sincerity, so how did they think that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq were going to buy into the supposedly bright new future?

In the places where democracy has flourished in the past two decades, there has either been a tradition of democratic government (most of Eastern Europe post-1989 and South America come to mind) or democracy has come about after the emergence of popular movements. In the latter case, it tends to emerge slowly, as in Jordan and other more liberal Middle Eastern nations.

However democracy emerges though, it tends to do best where the local populace have a genuine say in how it is constructed, rather than where they have a model imposed upon them by an outside, rather unsympathetic force. And that is where Europe needs to do more. If we are to rely on the Americans for muscle, then we must provide the means to build viable, representative civil societies, teaching people the basic building blocks of democracy, encouraging diversity of the press, helping to build education systems for the young, and providing them an example, to follow or not according to local taste. Why not provide university education to the potential leadership of tomorrow, so that they can go back to their countries and work to build freer communities. We used to do that quite successfully in the days leading up to independence in our former colonies with, admittedly, mixed results.

But most of all, we have to set an example in the way we manage our democracy. I firmly believe that one of the key reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union was the increasing inability of the Communist Party to suppress the messages coming from the West. Once it became clear that the democracies were not the terrible places that Poles, Rumanians and Ukrainians had been told to expect, expectations emerged that the control economies could never meet.

By your actions, ye shall be judged, and not necessarily by the people you might expect. The building of civil societies isn't glamorous, and it isn't quick. But in the long run, it is cheaper, safer and more likely to protect our people from the threat of terrorism. Not so much a war on terror as a campaign against ignorance, conformity and oppression...